Isn't Defense supposed to be his strong suit?

The defense has been without three of their best players the last couple weeks. They’ll improve when Brockers, Quinn and TruJo are back to health.

JackPMiller wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

The defense has been without three of their best players the last couple weeks. They’ll improve when Brockers, Quinn and TruJo are back to health.

Does not matter.

Of course it matters.

If you had to put money down on the Rams but could choose your game, which game would you choose?

One where they had Quinn, Brockers, and Johnson at full speed?

Or one where all 3 were out?

JackPMiller wrote:

We had them against the 49ers and Buccaneers. What is the excuse?

I;m sorry Jack I hit edit instead of quote and kind of butchered your post there. I straightened it out as best I could.

But to reply to what’s there.

I don’t use the “e” word, Jack. To call someone’s argument an “excuse” is to be disdainful and dismissive.

But back to my bet.

Now unless you claim that with Quinn, Brockers, and Johnson the Rams should never be defeated…which I doubt you would claim…then consider the bet. Do the odds favor them winning more with those 3 or less with those 3?

If you had to choose a game to bet on the Rams, would it be one where they had Quinn, Brockers, and Johnson or one where they didn’t?

I bet I know your answer, since your answer would be reasonable.

So therefore yes, having those 3 out makes a difference.

…

I would expect next men up, be coached up, and prepared to play well.

So you think there are teams 2 deep when it comes to a top pass-rushing right defensive end?

Name the teams you;ve known through all NFL history that were 2 deep that way. That is they could afford to lose a top pass rushing end because they didn’t lose anything with the next guy up. How many teams have ever been that deep at end? (And that’s not to mention the fact that it’s both a top corner and a top end.)

Because see the issue is, not replacing A player. It’s replacing one of the top players in the league.

Is a team better off with one of the top defensive ends in the league? Cause if not I don’t know why they extended him. Turns out according to you, you can get just as good production for cheaper from your bench.

I keep asking these tough but obvious questions and you keep repeating coaching cliches.

JackPMiller wrote:

zn wrote:

I would expect next men up, be coached up, and prepared to play well.

So you think there are teams 2 deep when it comes to a top pass-rushing right defensive end?

Name the teams you;ve known through all NFL history that were 2 deep that way. That is they could afford to lose a top pass rushing end because they didn’t lose anything with the next guy up. How many teams have ever been that deep at end? (And that’s not to mention the fact that it’s both a top corner and a top end.)

Because see the issue is, not replacing A player. It’s replacing one of the top players in the league.

Is a team better off with one of the top defensive ends in the league? Cause if not I don’t know why they extended him. Turns out according to you, you can get just as good production for cheaper from your bench.

I keep asking these tough but obvious questions and you keep repeating coaching cliches.

If the Head Coaches strength is defense, like Jeff Fisher is supposed to be, I would expect it to do well, even with 11 new starters. If he struggles with that, then that is a problem.

Jack, so you think a team’s performance falls all on the coach even when his best players are injured? The coach should be able to plug any player in and get good results? In other words the player doesn’t matter – only the coach matters.

If that’s the case then why does the NFL pay millions of dollars on scouting departments? Why do they spend millions flying scouts to college games to evaluate players and why do they fly entire coaching staffs to a dozen or more college combines and pro days every year? If what you say is true then why doesn’t every team in the league simply stock their teams with cheap scrubs?

Because the players do matter, right? And the better they are the more they matter and the harder they are to replace. That’s why coaches can’t be expected to do as well when too many key pieces of their roster are hurt. The players matter.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by nittany ram.

InvaderRam wrote:

just to play devil’s advocate houston is without jj watt who is arguably the best player period in the nfl. and he wasn’t even healthy the three games he did play.

the defense is ranked 6th overall in total yards allowed.

of course you could go off different metrics. on football outsiders houston is ranked 11th overall in dvoa. rams are ranked 14th.

i don’t know what other injuries the texans have suffered compared to the rams.

Who else would they have to be without for it to be equivalent to Quinn, Brockers, and Johnson?

Cause the Rams aren’t missing just one player.

As a coach, you have to be prepared for everything.

You keep repeating abstract pronouncements about coaches.

Meanwhile, I can’t think of a single team that was 2 deep at right DE, to the point where they could lose a top starter at that spot (like a Dent, Freeney, or Haley) without any effect.

And that’s not even mentioning losing a top CB at the same time.

.

we are seeing a completely different defensive scheme from the good guys this year than what we’ve seen in the last few years.

GW loves to pressure the QB and is known for inventive ways to bring extra rushers.

This year the Rams have been primarily a cover 2 and 4 rushers team…even from game 1 when everybody, with the exception of EJ, was healthy.

I think they started they year this way because EJ was out and Sens was starting and the safeties were a question mark….so they tried to give the DB’s a little room to not get beat over the top. Now that Tru is down, Sens has been canned…insert Hill…., and the safeties are playing better than hoped. But they are still trying to protect the DB’s playing bend but don’t break.

nittany ram wrote:

sanbagger wrote:

we are seeing a completely different defensive scheme from the good guys this year than what we’ve seen in the last few years.

GW loves to pressure the QB and is known for inventive ways to bring extra rushers.

This year the Rams have been primarily a cover 2 and 4 rushers team…even from game 1 when everybody, with the exception of EJ, was healthy.

I think they started they year this way because EJ was out and Sens was starting and the safeties were a question mark….so they tried to give the DB’s a little room to not get beat over the top. Now that Tru is down, Sens has been canned…insert Hill…., and the safeties are playing better than hoped. But they are still trying to protect the DB’s playing bend but don’t break.

Excellent point. Last year with JJenks and TruJo at corner, they could do more things defensively. This year they have had to play more vanilla to protect their newbies in the secondary.

That’s the only explanation I can come up with.

I know they mush rush guys like Wilson but to not bring it against Stafford….they have to be trying to protect some area.

Coming in to the season one of my biggest concerns was the linebacking corps. I think they have done a good job…Tree and Barron are very visible and active and Forrest seems like an up and comer (I’m not saying the name Fletcher yet) but for a late round selection he has shown up.

InvaderRam wrote:

well and one of the keys to running an effective cover 2 i believe is to be able to have a 4 man rush. that goes down significantly when you lose quinn. your edge rusher. as well as hayes on the other side and brockers in the middle.

I always thought that was the most important part of the cover 2…that and having good DT’s that can push the line like the old Tampa Bucs.

That’s why it’s a little frustrating for me…..when the DB’s do a good job it seems as though the QB has time to wait.

If they let Eli feel comfortable, he will pick them apart. They need to rattle him, and he can be rattled, and the only way to do that is hit him.